Thursday, December 31, 2015

Ruth: 2016? I would love to tell you it was the year that PACIFICA RADIO rediscovered their belief system.

Love to.

But, of course, I cannot.

It is so hard to believe now, all these years later, after the various battles, especially the one with Mary Frances Berry, that anyone ever bothered to fight to save PACIFICA RADIO.

Remember Ms. Berry?

And the charges against her?

She was attempting to 'commericalize' PACIFICA and she was attempting to make it an organ for the Democratic Party.

Remember the self-righteous indignation over all of this?

Back then, people like labor leader Maury Englander made statements such as, "Will KPFA operate according to Lewis Hill's vision for the station, or will it become a tamed-down mouthpiece for the values of corporate America, fearful of criticizing the likes of a Clinton or any other administration committed to maintaining America as the one power on earth permitted to maintain its imperial dominance through force of arms?"

And today?

Paid whores like Mitch Jeserich use the airwaves to felliate U.S. President Barack Obama and overlook The Drone War, the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, his war on whistle-blowers, his war on immigrants, and so much more.

Centrists and the politically ignorant might have reason to stay on board with Mr. Obama -- after all, intellectual Dr. Cornel West has rightly observes that Mr. Obama is "a Rockefeller Republican."

But for the radical left, there is nothing to applaud in the two terms of Mr. Obama's presidency.

More to the point, the radical left should have damn well known better.

On air, Mr. Jeserich always came off like a charter member of the Democratic Leadership Council so it is no real surprise that he would remain at PACIFICA, in fact be given his useless and money wasting LETTERS AND POLITICS show while the more talented Deepa Fernandes would leave PACIFICA (she is now at NPR station KPCC).

Amy Goodman continues to leach millions out of PACIFICA's budget and so it is fitting that the left has begun to wake up to her con-game.

Goodman is a foundation funded hack who did yeoman service for Obama and the cause of "humanitarian intervention" in Libya. She
and Democracy Now disseminated lie after lie, parroting State
Department talking points and lies from Human Rights Watch and Navi
Pillay. Their "reporter" was a liar embedded with NATO-backed terrorists
and they all have Libyan blood on their hands. In all that time
reporting about Gaddafi alleged "crimes" (all of which have been debunked
and proved to have been lies), they deliberately ignored the ethnic
cleansing of Black Libyans in Fezzan, the Tawergha people, etc because
it didn't jive with the "Good rebels vs bad Gaddafi" script they were
feeding the so called "progressive left". Now they try to pretend they
didn't and they were against the war on Libya.

Goodman has done similarly with
regard to Syria. They are discredited liars whose good work only comes
in opposing Republican wars which takes no courage at all. They are, put simply, left liberal imperialists.I said in 2011 that Democracy Now and Young Turks and all these other
foundation funded left liberal imperialists would never be forgiven for
their treachery, and they haven’t been, no matter how they try to
whitewash their records.

Amy Goodman and her ilk thought they could pull one over on people. In fact, they merely exposed themselves.

The growing acknowledgement throughout the left about people like Amy Goodman made it very clear that there was little reason for the likes of PACIFICA to exist anymore.

The only shows of value are those that followed their own drums.

Throughout the two terms of Bully Boy Bush, the likes of Bonnie Faulkner and Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff were regularly attacked -- by some elements of the left.

But it is Bonnie Faulkner and her GUNS AND BUTTER radio program and Mickey Huff and his PROJECT CENSORED RADIO that are the last shows -- the final ones? -- broadcast on PACIFICA today which really embrace the vision Lewis Hill had when he started PACIFICA in 1949.

Otherwise?

I do not really see any point in PACIFICA anymore.

And I laugh at their continued financial crisis.

Why?

I do remember in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 what was going on.

They were increasing their number of listeners, they were increasing the number of donors and the amount of money pledged in fundraising drives.

And then?

They began their walk away from Iraq.

Telling the truth about the Iraq War allowed them to stand out and find an audience.

Today?

They ignore the Iraq War.

They refuse to call out the sitting president who continues the Iraq War.

They refuse to spend hours probing how exactly Mr. Obama ordering U.S. war planes to drop bombs on Iraq is helping anyone.

The books you loved this year told the truth, sang, made you laugh, reached you. Some on the list had a stronger reach -- one's been voted a year's best for a third year -- most are newer. All are worth reading.

Topping the list, the clear winner was Carly Simon's BOYS IN THE TREES. Ava and C.I. tried to get out of reviewing it, as Kat noted in "Carly's BOYS IN THE TREES," because they didn't want to be accused of influencing the voting [they reviewed it with "Carly Swings Tree To Tree (Ava and C.I.)"]. We doubt they could have influenced the voting. Check our "Boknotes" columns in the gina & krista round-robin throughout this year and you'll notice we're frequently mentioning it and providing updates because we kept getting e-mails about this book all year long.

A number of you noted on your ballot -- like Yazz, Eric, Brady and Keesha did -- that SONGS FROM THE TREES should be purchased with the book.

But with or without that two disc soundtrack, Carly's memoir is the year's best.

The Cassandras. That's what Beth dubbed them in the roundtable she moderated in October for the gina & krista round-robin (more on that in a moment). The Cassandras -- she named Ava and C.I., Ned Parker, Emma Sky, Michael Gordon, Bernard E. Trainor and the author of the third book on the list. They were the one who were sounding alarms in real time as Nouri al-Maliki's second term became little more than a vengeance fueled blood massacre.

Sky's written a book that catpures how Iraq went from bad to awful from 2010 to 2014. What she fails to do is to establish why the world and the media ignored these events but maybe telling that much truth would have left this major book shut completely out by the media?

Beth's roundtable. Deborah Amos' book is not making its first appearance on our annual list. The book has made two previous appearances -- including topping the 2010 list. That was five years ago. How many non-fiction books from 2015 will be remembered in five years?

"This book matters," Beth explained at the start of her October roundtable, "still matters." You cannot understand the refugee crisis, the persecution of Sunnis in Iraq that fueled the Islamic State, without this book.

A number of writers -- Thomas E. Ricks among them -- have written useless and forgettable books about Iraq. Deborah Amos has written a book that truly matters which is why, five years after it was first published, it's still possibly the most important book on post-US invasion of Iraq.

We love funny, we love to laugh. This year's list has two books that made us laugh and the clear favorite was Mindy's book. Ann noted:But the best moment in the book has to be when she's a teacher at a high school exchanging e-mails, texts, etc.

This section is better than the Vincent and Theo on AOL parody in Jon
Stewart's Naked Pictures of Famous People and as good as the iditorod (I
hope I spelled that right) competition in Ellen DeGeneres' classic My
Point . . . And I Do Have One.

The first long talk I had with C.I. after my wedding to Cedric? That
came up, that section of Ellen's book. And we both couldn't stop
laughing because we love that.

There are a lot of funny books out there.

But it takes to a whole nother level when Jon Stewart does the Vincent and Theo or Ellen does her trip to Alaska.

Nipping at Mindy's heels was Aziz. Mike noted the book's only real flaw:It's like he's insecure.

Not insecure about whether or not he's funny but insecure about being funny -- like it's something to apologize for.

So my big beef here is that every time the jokes are tickling my funny
bone (a lot of which you'll be familiar with if you've seen his comedy
specials), it seems like it's time to interrupt with some study or other
nonsense.

A surprising number of readers voted for this 2011 book which was covered by Rebecca in the final week of voting. Some like Sabina noted on their ballots that they'd read it when it first came out and were voting for it because they thought Rebecca's mention might help it make the top ten while others like Marco noted on their ballots that they'd just discovered the book thanks to Rebecca's review. This is a lively read as the author explores four of the UK's biggest movie stars, cross-cutting from one incident to another at breakneck speed.

Elaine noted the book here, THIRD did a parody. All over the internet, people were talking. Few novels ever get even half the amount of attention Harper Lee's book received in 2015. But whether you loved this follow up to TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD or hated it or merely liked it, when a serious work of fiction gets that level of attention, it's a good thing.

Stan noted this book after voting had closed. But clearly, his positive take on the book was shared by other community members.

This is a strong book and, on her ballot, Teri praised the "clear headed look" at Sinatra which was "always fair but never fawning." Greg noted the insights such as Sinatra's "default mode was escape." A book that will make you think and make you want to explore the Frank Sinatra discography.

Sinatra's ex, the love of his life, Ava Gardner was next on the list. Rebecca's "the secret conversations by peter evans" and Marcia's "Summer read?" reviewed the book over the summer. Some of you agreed with their take on it, some of you liked the book much more than they did, but over 430 of you felt it was worthy of the top ten.

We love non-fiction, as a community. So it's not that surprising that only two novels make the year's list -- or that one of the two is historical fiction. Berg explores the novelist George Sand and her affairs in this volume that DeLisa pronounced "simply enchanting."

So there you have it -- the ten books that spoke to the community in 2015 -- call it a snapshot of where we were.

Thursday, December 31, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, US veterans and contractors may get justice over burn pits after all, Basra emerges as a potential new hotspot, Hillary Clinton tries to overcome being a War Hawk, and much more.

Happy New Year to all in #Kurdistan, #Iraq & the world, hoping an end to sufferings of 2015. 2016 to be a great year for all & end of #ISIS

61 retweets104 likes

The end of the year brings good news and bad news.

On the good news side, Tara Copp (STARS AND STRIPES) reports, "A federal district court on Jan. 21 will consider the scope of a lawsuit
alleging soldiers’ exposure to burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan led to
serious respiratory illnesses and deaths and whether government
contractor KBR, Inc. is responsible for the way the pits were operated."

The burn pits?

"While I was stationed at Balad, I experienced the
effects of the massive burn pit that burned 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week. The ten-acre pit was located in the northwest corner of the base.
An acrid, dark black smoke from the pit would accumulate and hang low
over the base for weeks at a time. Every spot on the base was touched
by smoke from the pit; everyone who served at the base was exposed to
the smoke. It was almost impossible to escape, even in our living
units," L. Russell Keith explained to the Democratic Policy CommitteeNovember 6, 2009.
Keith worked for KBR in Iraq at Joint Base Balad from March 2006
through July 2007. Like many service members and contractors, he was
unnecessarily exposed to toxins which put his life at risk.

The
Chair of the DPC, Senator Byron Dorgan, noted at the start of that day's
hearing, "Today we're going to have a discussion and have a hearing on
how, as early as 2002, US military installations in Iraq and
Afghanistan began relying on open-air burn pits -- disposing of waste
materials in a very dangerous manner. And those burn pits included
materials such as hazardous waste, medical waste, virtually all of the
waste without segregation of the waste, put in burn pits. We'll hear
how there were dire health warnings by Air Force officials about the
dangers of burn pit smoke, the toxicity of that smoke, the danger for
human health. We'll hear how the Department of Defense regulations in
place said that burn pits should be used only in short-term emergency
situations -- regulations that have now been codified. And we will hear
how, despite all the warnings and all the regulations, the Army and
the contractor in charge of this waste disposal, Kellogg Brown &
Root, made frequent and unnecessary use of these burn pits and exposed
thousands of US troops to toxic smoke."

At that day's hearing, Lt Col Darrin Curtis was among the witnesses and we'll note this exchange he had with Senator Dorgan.

Chair
Byron Dorgan: Mr. Curtis, why did you decide to write the 2006
memorandum? And did anyone else at that point share your concerns about
the health impact of burn pits?

Lt
Col Darrin Curtis: Yes, Senator, they did. The Chief of Air Space
Medicine had the same concerns I did. The memo was initially written so
that we could expedite the installation of the incinerators. From my
understanding, there were spending limits of monies with health issues
and not health issues so I wanted to write the report to show that
there are health issues associated with burn pits so that we could
hopefully accelerate the installation of the incinerators.

Chair
Byron Dorgan: Of the type of burn pit you saw in Iraq in 2006 --
that's some while after the war began and infrastructure had been
created and so on except without incinerators -- if something of that
nature were occurring in a neighborhood here in Washington DC or any
American city, what are the consequences to them?

Lt Col Darrin Curtis: At least fines and possibly jail.

Chair Byron Dorgan: Because?

Lt Col Darrin Curtis: Of the regulations that are out there today.

Chair Byron Dorgan: Because it's a serious risk to human health?

Lt Col Darrin Curtis: Yes, sir.

Chair
Byron Dorgan: You say that when you arrived in Iraq an inspector for
the US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine --
which is CHPPM -- told you that the Balad burn pit was the worst
environmental site that he has seen and that included the ten years he
had performed environmental clean up for the Army and Defense's
Logistic Agency. And yet in your testimony, you also say that CHPPM
has done this study and says adverse health risks are unlikely. So
you're talking about an inspector from CHPPM that says 'this is the
worst I've seen' and then a report comes out later from CHPPM that
says: "Adverse health risks are unlikely. Long-term health effects are
not expected to occur from breathing the smoke." Contradiction there
and why?

Lt
Col Darrin Curtis: I think any organization, you're going to have
people with differences of opinion. But at CHPPM, I'm sure that was the
same-same outcome there. Cause I don't know if that individual --

Chair
Byron Dorgan: (Overlapping) Do you think that CHPPM -- do you think
CHPPM assessment that's been relied on now is just wrong?

Lt
Col Darrin Curtis: (Overlapping) I think -- I think -- Senator, I
think the hard line that there is no health effects is a -- is a very
strong comment that we don't have the data to say. Do we have the data
to say that it is a health risk? I don't think we have that either.
But I do not think we have the data to say there is no health risk.

Chair
Byron Dorgan: You are a bio-environmental engineer what is -- what is
your own opinion? Without testing or data, you saw the burn pits, you
were there, you hear the testimony of what went in the burn pits, you
hear Dr. Szema's assessment. What's your assessment?

Lt Col Darrin Curtis: I think we're going to look at a lot of sick people later on.

The
military has relied heavily on open pit burning in both conflicts, and
operators of burn pits have not always followed relevant guidance to
protect servicemembers from exposure to harmful emissions. According to
DOD, U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq generate about 10
pounds of solid waste per soldier each day. The military has relied on
open pit burning to dispose of this waste mainly because of its
expedience. In August 2010, CENTCOM estimated there were 251 burn pits
in Afghanistan and 22 in Iraq.[. . .]Lawsuits
have been filed in federal court in at least 43 states in which
current and former servicemembers have alleged, among other things,
that a contractor's negligent management of burn pit operations,
contrary to applicable contract provisions, exposed them to air
pollutants that subsequently caused serious health problems. The
contractor has moved to dismiss the suits, arguing, among other things,
that it cannot be held liable for any injuries that may have occurred
to service personnel because all its burn pit activities occurred at
the direction of the military.

Today, the victims and their loved ones have a chance at justice.

A chance at justice.

The federal district court decision to hear the case is big news.

On the bad news side for veterans?

Homeless veterans still exist in the United States. That's news today -- news for being yet another broken promise.

As David Greene (NPR's MORNING EDITION) noted last week, "The Obama administration says it wants to end homelessness among veterans by the end of this year. Well, that is not going to happen." Anjali Shastry (WASHINGTON TIMES) explains, "Despite five years and billions of dollars, President Obama failed to meet his goal of ending veteran homelessness by 2015, though officials say they have cut the rate by 36 percent and made progress with better care for veterans in communities across the country."

Where to next?

Ramadi?

Must every day be about the media insisting that Ramadi -- today for sure! -- has been liberated at last.

Even though it's still not liberated?

Every day, the limited amount of time the world press spends on Iraq is taken up by tales of Ramadi's liberation.

Instead of that we get more nonsense on Ramadi supposedly being liberated.

Mosul is supposed to be next for liberation.

Mosul is what Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has declared. But Ahmed Rasheed and Stephen Kalin (REUTERS) note Falluja is in Anbar Province (as is Ramadi) and that it's closer to Baghdad than Mosul. The two report, "Ahmed al-Assadi, a spokesman for the Hashid Shaabi - a coalition of
mostly Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias set up to fight Islamic State -
said Falluja would likely come before Mosul.

At GLOBAL INSIGHTS today, the question is "Can Iraq's Prime Minister Al-Abadi hold on?" and the analysis notes the Shi'ite tensions al-Abadi faces:It is unclear how far this can placate the Shia anti-Western hardliners. He recently met
with the senior Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr who voiced support for
Iraq’s embattled PM. Sadr has deep ties with Iran’s Qom establishment
and, as one of the few Shia leaders who stayed in Iraq during the years
of Saddam’s rule, is popular within the poor Shia community. The Sadrist
Movement supports disbanding of the Popular Mobilization Forces and the
integration of Shia militias into the national army.On the other hand, the Badr Brigades – a Shia militia – is a central part of the Popular Mobilization Forces and its leader, Hadi Al-Amiri,
has close ties to the Iranian leadership. Al-Amiri is highly critical
of the Prime Minister and will continue to use his resources to
counteract his authority. The Badr Organization has powerful influence
in Iraq’s military and has even commanded units of the national army on
the front lines against IS.

On Dec. 1, the Hezbollah Brigades threatened to pursue and target US forces in Iraq, as "they refuse the help of US forces in the war against IS.”On Sept. 22, some factions of the Popular Mobilization Units, namely
the Hezbollah Brigades, the Badr Organization and the League of the
Righteous, issued a joint press release
warning that a return of US troops to Iraq would be viewed “as renewed
occupation of Iraq by the United States.” They further called on the
Iraqi government “not to seek help from US forces.”Hezbollah Brigades spokesman Jaafar al-Husseini told Al-Monitor, “US
soldiers are not welcome in Iraq, either as consultants or as members of
the international coalition, because to us such troops are hostile and
must be opposed.”Husseini denied any coordination between the Hezbollah Brigades and the international coalition and the Iraqi government.The threat of targeting US troops in Iraq was not limited to
Hezbollah; the head of the Badr Organization and second-in-command of
the Popular Mobilization Units, Hadi al-Amri,
issued a press statement Sept. 30 that read, “I informed [Prime
Minister] Haider al-Abadi that the United States should only back Iraq
with weaponry and refrain from participating in combat operations,
because we reject their presence on the ground.”

The Popular Mobilization Force (PMF), the
command assigned by the Iraqi government with organizing militias to
fight the Islamic State, has exceeded the scope of its mission by
attempting to impart changes in society and culture through threats and
force.

This month, the PMF began harassing
Christians in Baghdad by suggesting women wear the hijab, or veil, and
instructing the religious minority not to celebrate Christmas.

The PMF erected posters in several
Baghdad neighborhoods with large numbers of Christians in mid-December,
calling for women there to wear the hijab, multiple witnesses said according to Qenshrin.
The posters were plastered on “churches and monasteries” in the
neighborhoods of “Al Karada, Karadat Maryam, Al Kathmiyeh, Al Sayyideh,
Zeinouneh, and Al Ghadir,” the news service reported.

Turning to the US, Senator Bernie Sanders, former Governor Martin O'Mally and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are vying for the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nomination. Jeffrey Frank (NEW YORKER) notes Hillary's floundering at the most recent debate:

But after serving four years as Secretary of State, facing some of what
might be in store for the forty-fifth President, her foreign-policy
positions often seem confused, most notably when it comes to dealing
with the Islamic State and the politics of the Middle East. You heard
that during the pre-Christmas Democratic debate, when ABC’s Martha Raddatz tried to pin down Clinton’s advocacy of a no-fly zone in Syria. “ISIS
doesn’t have aircraft, Al Qaeda doesn’t have aircraft,” Raddatz pointed
out. “So would you shoot down a Syrian military aircraft or a Russian
airplane?” Clinton’s reply was that “I do not think it would come to
that. We are already de-conflicting air space.” When Raddatz
persisted—“But isn’t that a decision you should make now?”—Clinton said
that she favored the no-fly zone “because I think it would help us on
the ground to protect Syrians.” She sees the dilemma but seems unwilling
to deal with it. Without mentioning Iraq or Libya, Sanders put it
clearly when he said, “I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too
much into regime change, and a little bit too aggressive without knowing
what the unintended consequences might be…. You’ve got to think about
what happens the day after.” Clinton didn’t really have a response.

That Democratic Party debate may have had few viewers but it offered tremendous insight. Ava and I addressed that debate two Sundays ago with "TV: The Hillary Clinton Rules:"

Is it really too much to expect that debate moderators will impose rules?

Or that when one chat hog won't shut up, that they cut her off?

And if she continues yacking after she's been cut off, that they only get firmer?

"Secretary Clinton," Raddatz asked at one point as Hillary was refusing
to answer the question and attempting to distract by going to a
different topic, "could we stick to gun control?"

Could we?

Stop her.

Shut her down.

Shut any candidate down who cannot follow the rules.

If you're not up to that, you're not up to being a debate moderator.

They're supposed to impose the rules but Raddatz and Muir let Hillary Clinton walk all over them.

"We have to abide by the rules," Muir insisted at one point, before refusing to impose them -- then or at any other time.

In their half-assed way, however, Muir and Raddatz may have provided a
public service: Letting the American public see just what a blow hard
and ego maniac Hillary has become.

Better they know while there's still a chance to defeat her in a primary.

"How many hours do we have? I don't want to take you into the new
year," Sanders joked. "How do I answer that? What was the most important
vote cast in the modern history of America on foreign affairs? Yeah, it
was Iraq," Sanders said. "What does Hillary Clinton have to do to
convince you that she has significant foreign policy judgment? She cast a
vote for the war. I cast a vote against the war."Sanders, who in
a November debate in Des Moines called the Iraq war "one of the worst
foreign policy blunders in the history of the United States," often
paints Clinton's vote to authorize the war as a major distinction
between the two leading Democratic candidates. In her 2008 presidential
campaign, Clinton said that the vote was based on faulty intelligence
information from the George W. Bush administration and that she wanted
to end the war, but she stopped short of saying she regretted the
vote She has since called the vote a mistake.

Conway Daily Sun Publisher Mark
Guerringue asked about her vote to support the Iraq War and her actions
as secretary of state during the attacks on the diplomatic mission in
Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 that led to the death of Ambassador J.
Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, two of which were with
the CIA."With Iraq I have said numerous times that it was a mistake to give
George Bush that authority, and I certainly believe as secretary of
state I more than represented the best interest of our country," Clinton
said. "There is nobody who is 100 percent right on every foreign policy
call, and I think my record is one I'm very proud of."

1. Why is Clinton more capable of leading our nation than
Sanders, if it was Vermont’s senator who voted against Iraq and
predicted its outcome, while Clinton calls her vote a “mistake”?Sorry, the Iraq War can’t simply be referred to as a “mistake.”
Too much carnage and global instability have resulted from Iraq to
ignore Clinton’s Iraq War vote. In addition, Hillary Clinton visited
Iraq with John McCain in 2005. During the visit, not only did Clinton
say that the insurgency was failing, but also that Iraq was“functioning quite well.”In reality, Clinton was again wrong. Iraq was already in a devastating civil war before 2005. According to Iraq Body Count,
a total of 23,861 civilians had died in Iraq before Clinton’s visit in
2005; a great many the victims of gun violence that Clinton is fervently
against.In contrast, it was Bernie Sanders, not the New York senator, who warned,
“Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will
the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that
country?” Sanders was able to predict Iraq’s devastating civil war in
2002, while Clinton was still echoing Cheney’s talking points linking Al
Qaeda to Saddam.As The New York Timeswrote
in 2007, “Clinton’s linking of Iraq’s leader and Al Qaeda, however, was
unsupported by the conclusions of the N.I.E. and other secret
intelligence reports that were available to senators before the vote.”
Yes, many Democrats forget that Hillary Clinton, like George W. Bush,
once linked Saddam Hussain to Al Qaeda.

What
better way to ring in the New Year than with Detroit Public Television
(DPTV) and the Detroit Symphony Orchestra’s (DSO) second annual New
Year’s Eve extravaganza, also known as the best party in town?

For the
second year in a row, DPTV will be partnering with the DSO to bring you
an evening filled with timeless R&B Soul hits and musical classics.
Principal Pops Conductor
Jeff Tyzik is back to lead the night with the help of legendary DSO Music Director
Leonard Slatkin and with a special performance by American Idol finalist
Michael Lynche.

Viewers will be able to enjoy their orchestral interpretations of iconic hits from artists like
The Beatles, Stevie Wonder, and others.

Festivities
will kick off at 8:00 pm on Thursday the 31st at Orchestra Hall in
Downtown Detroit with a red carpet event, followed by the concert and
live broadcast at 10:00 pm hosted by DPTV’s own
Fred Nahhat and DSO’s Assistant Conductor, Michelle Merrill.

A full
orchestral performance of the New Year’s classic “Auld Lang Syne” will
round out the evening to take you straight into 2016 along with a
champagne toast.

Can’t attend the event? Watch at home on DPTV or stream it online by visiting
http://dptv.org/nye (where tickets are also available).

Major funding for this 2nd annual DSO
New Year’s DPTV telecast and live webcast is provided by the Stanley and
Judith Frankel Family Foundation.

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Wednesday, December 30, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, the effort at liberating Ramadi is still incomplete, tensions rise between Turkey and Iraq, two people vying for their parties presidential nomination note Iraq today, and much more.

Saif Hameed and Ece Toksabay (REUTERS) report, "Iraq's prime minister accused Turkey
on Wednesday of failing to respect an agreement to withdraw its troops
from the country's north and its foreign minister said if forced, Iraq
could resort to military action to defend its sovereignty."

This month found the government of Iraq objecting to the fact that Turkish troops were deployed to and stationed near Mosul. They were formally asked to leave. Xinhua notes, "Baghdad has insisted that the Turkish troops have no
authorization from the Iraqi government and thus demanded their
withdrawal, while Ankara called the troops only a routine rotation of
the trainers."

When they refused, the Iraqi government appealed to the US government, the United Nations Security Council and the Arab League.

Last week, a body weighed in with a ruling. SPUTNIK reported, "Turkey must withdraw immediately all its troops from
Iraq without any preconditions, a statement unanimously adopted by
members of the Arab League said Thursday." AFP noted:

The
Turkish deployment "is an assault on Iraqi sovereignty and a threat to
Arab national security," they said in an Arab League statement after
meeting at the pan-Arab bloc's Cairo headquarters.Arab League
deputy chief Ahmed Ben Heli read out the statement at a press
conference, in which he added that the Turkish troops "increased tumult
in the region."

SPUTNIK reports:On Wednesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said that Turkey
had not honored a commitment to withdraw its troops from the region.Abadi said in a statement that a Turkish delegation to Iraq promised
to announce, upon returning to Ankara, that Turkey would withdraw its
troops, "but the Turkish government has not respected the agreement and
we request that the Turkish government announce immediately that it will
withdraw from Iraqi territory."

Speaking during an interview on NTV, [Prime Minister Ahmet] Davutoglu
acknowledged there had been "miscommunication" over the troop
deployment. He said that Ankara respected Iraqi sovereignty but added
that Baghdad is not in control one third of its own territory.

Turkey
announced earlier that it had begun withdrawing troops in a bid to
soothe a bitter row with Baghdad and following a call from U.S.
President Barack Obama.

Lavrov
thus described the US-led coalition's position on what is going on in
Syria and Iraq: “Well, the Iraqis invited us to move in and we
like Iraq, but we are still trying to tell them what is right and what
is wrong… As for Syria, it is a dictator, its days are numbered and
we’ll keep bombing it without asking for permission from anyone. This is
exactly what the Turks are now saying too,” he told the Moscow-based
Zvezda television channel in an interview.

Turning to Ramadi which is still in the process of liberation or 'liberation' . . .

Two days after the misinformation began to be released as news and Ramadi still has pockets controlled by the Islamic State.

Bill Van Auken (WSWS) calls out a NEW YORK TIMES editorial rah-rah-rahing over the 'liberaton' of Ramadi:What the Times editors choose to cover up is the fact that
the Iraqi flag was raised over a city that has been largely reduced to
rubble by a protracted siege and at least 630 air strikes by US and
allied warplanes. There were no crowds to hail Ramadi’s supposed
liberation and there is, as yet, no indication of how many civilians
have been killed in this military operation. One can assume that the
death toll is high, however, given the massive scale of the destruction.The retaking of Ramadi will hardly go down as one of history’s great
military feats. When the city fell to ISIS in May of 2015, about 600
ISIS fighters routed an Iraqi government force ten times larger. The
insurgents were even more greatly outnumbered this time around, with at
most 350 fighters thought to be in the city, meaning the Pentagon
launched roughly two air strikes for every armed member of ISIS.

On the destruction of Ramadi, Thomas Fessy (BBC News) notes:Ramadi is a city that has been sacrificed in battle. The scale of
destruction is enormous, delaying the prospect of return for those who
lived in areas that have been liberated. "We hope to go back as
soon as possible, but we heard on the news that it has been so destroyed
I know it's not going to happen any time soon," lamented Mr Najm.The UN says it will be essential to ensure conditions are in place for people to return in safety.

Little if any attention has been paid to the citizens of Ramadi or the destruction to the city via the 'liberation' effort. Jason Ditz (ANTIWAR.COM) does note the destruction:Gen. Mahlawi said operations in Ramadi were paused for today because of the weather, and estimated that ISIS still controls about 30% of the city, such as it is. This is a surprising admission, as Iraq claimed total victory in the city days ago.Defense Minister Khaled Obeidi, meanwhile, told the cabinet Ramadi had been turned into a “ghost town,” and that 80% of the city is effectively destroyed. The Education Ministry said 260 schools were destroyed in the fighting, and would cost $500 million to rebuild by themselves.

The issue then becomes why America is doing this, nearly 13 years
since its initial invasion of Iraq and four years after President George
W. Bush agreed with the Iraqis that the United States would withdraw
its forces.

Despite the attention the American media have given the re-taking of
Ramadi, deeming it a triumph of President Barack Obama’s strategy for
sustaining the Abadi government and combating the Islamic State,
Americans don’t care who holds Ramadi. They would like to see a
definitive end to the risk of U.S. lives and expenditure of U.S. assets
in Iraq.

-- Near Albu Hayat, a strike destroyed an ISIL tactical vehicle and an ISIL vehicle.

-- Near Hit, a strike struck an ISIL vehicle bomb storage facility.

Task force officials define a
strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same
geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect.
Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single
weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is a strike, but so is multiple
aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and
weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect
of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use.
Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of
aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each
strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a
target.

Turning to the US race for president, Senator Bernie Sanders is running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

We need to invest $1 trillion to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and create up to 13 million decent-paying jobs.

811 retweets2,211 likes

Business person Donald Trump is running for the GOP presidential nomination. Today, he spoke in South Carolina -- BLOOMBERG NEWS posted video of the speech. Among other things, he noted the ratings for the debate (Republican debates have been big draws for viewers). We'll pick up where he's leading into Iraq.

Donald Trump: 'Mr. Trump, you have thirty seconds, what would you do about ISIS?' Oh, great. Thank you. And by the way, that question I hate those questions. You know why? Because I want to be unpredictable. I don't want to tell ISIS what I'm going to do to knock the hell out of them. I hate it. I hate it. Remember, I said very strongly: Keep the oil for, what, four years. Four years. I mean you've been watching. Four years. Get the oil. Get the oil. Because who's going to get the oil? Iran is taking over Iraq. We made a deal for Iran done by some of the dumbest people on earth on our side. We gave them everything. We don't even get our prisoners back. And now Iran wants to start negotiating seperately for the [release of the prisoners]. Can you believe it? I go crazy. We would have gotten them back. All we had to do is say, "We want them back." They would have said "no"? I would have said, "I want them back. You don't understand me. I want them back." They would have said, "No, we won't do that"? I would've said, "Bye-bye." And I would've left. Then I would have doubled up the sanctions. And I guarantee you -- I guarantee you that within 24 hours they would have called back and they would say, "You've got your prisoners, let's talk." And I would have never given them 150 billion -- I would never have given them the money. I would have never given them. And they're using the money. They don't have to make nuclear? They can buy it, why do they have to make it? And we have the nuclear where they have self-inspections. How about the area, the big area? They don't want us there. Oh, I wonder why? They don't want us there. So they self-inspect. Then they have the 24 day inspection. But the self-inspection is the beauty: "We think you're making nuclear weapons here. Well let us go check, Mr. President, we'll check. No, sir, we're not making nuclear weapons.. Uh, no, nobody, we would never do a thing like that." These are people that have lied to us, they've deceived us. They are a terrorist state. And I used to say it's the worst deal that I've ever seen negotiated. And by the way, just to finish, prisoners. So they come back, we get our prisoners but then when I hear the other day that now this deal is done, it's all done. And now I hear, they want to negotiate to get the [prisoners]. And what did they say? They said very strongly, they said, 'We are going to want a lot for the prisoners.' We're staring off [with Iran saying] we're going to want a lot. Now we've already taken off the sanctions. They're already rich as hell. What-what's going on there? That's why I say -- Some people say it's worse than stupidity, there's something going on that we don't know about. I mean honestly. And you almost think -- I mean, I'm not saying that, And I'm not a conspiracy person. [Referring to a member of the audience] She said, "We are! We''re saying it!" Half the people in this room are saying it. I'm trying to be -- like -- I'm just hoping they're stupid people. Okay? Which they are.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.